Never Again, Again

Steven Spielberg threw a Holocaust party and everyone, from Samuel L. Jackson to Kim Kardashian, was invited.

The gala evening for his Shoah Foundation began with a few jokes. Conan O’Brien’s, “I called all my Jewish writers into my office and asked them for some Shoah jokes” really killed. Bruce Springsteen played “Dancing in the Dark” whose lyrics “you can’t start a fire without a spark” couldn’t possibly have been more appropriate considering that the literal meaning of Holocaust is “Sacrifice by fire.”

Obama slipped in after his DNC fundraiser with Barbara Streisand and Jeffrey Katzenberg to shake hands with a bunch of studio heads, Jewish and non-Jewish, and accept an award as Ambassador for Humanity. There was no explanation as to what an Ambassador for Humanity does. Maybe he reaches out to space aliens. Or tries to commune with fish.

Last summer, Obama had forced Israel to release the murderer of Isaac Rotenburg, an elderly Holocaust survivor who had escaped a death camp and reached Israel, only to be killed by a member of Palestinian Authority leader Abbas’ Fatah party.

Flanked by Spielberg and Springsteen, Obama told an audience of notables such as Kim Kardashian, Tyler Perry, Tom Cruise, Samuel L. Jackson and Robert Downey Jr. about the importance of Holocaust survivors and how he would like to help the Nigerian girls kidnapped by an Islamic terrorist group that his administration fought to keep off the terrorist list, but he just can’t.

It’s hard to find the time to fight Nigerian Islamic terrorists when you’re so busy forcing Israel to free Islamic terrorists.

Cruise had delivered the introduction to the 2005 event at which Steven Spielberg appointed Bill Clinton as Ambassador for Humanity. Last year George Clooney, currently marrying a woman eager to defend every Muslim thug and terrorist, became Ambassador for Humanity. Before that it was the CEO of Walt Disney, the CEO of Comcast and Spielberg’s pal Jeffrey Katzenberg.

To be appointed Ambassador for Humanity you have to run a Hollywood studio or be a top Democrat. If Hillary Clinton isn’t named Ambassador for Humanity next year, it will only be because the world ended.

There was no word on whether Tony Kushner was in attendance. Kushner, Spielberg’s longtime collaborator, had called the rebirth of Israel a “mistake” and accused Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial and museum, of a “Zionist agenda”.

Spielberg had handed over the story of the PLO massacre of Israeli athletes to Kushner who turned it into an indictment of Israel and a defense of the terrorists. Munich was a work of historical revisionism justifying the murder of Jews and demonizing those Jews who fought back from a filmmaker who had built the “serious” phase of his career on exploiting the Holocaust.

Responding to the backlash, Spielberg called critics “right-wing fundamentalists” and said that, “people who are important to me” see the movie correctly, including, “Liberal American Jews.”

Now Spielberg is working on yet another Jewish themed project with Kushner.

The Israeli response to the Munich Massacre embodied a “Never Again” attitude to the Holocaust in the truest sense. It was this “Never Again” stance that Spielberg, like so many Jewish liberals, tried to tear down and replace with tolerance memorials and vulgar parties.

After the jokes and musical performances, the speeches by Spielberg and Obama implied that the Shoah Foundation was working to prevent a repetition of the Holocaust. If anything it’s the other way around. Spielberg and Obama have helped make another Holocaust possible.

Obama bears the blame for enabling Iran’s nuclear strategy, but Spielberg bears the guilt for celebrating him while he does it. Obama is married by family and ideology to two movements that have sought to exterminate the Jews. Spielberg’s party circuit echoes with the shallowness and liberal pieties that prevented American Jewish leaders from challenging FDR’s complicity in the Holocaust.

That battle was fought between Jewish studio heads who pledged their allegiance and silence to FDR and rebels like Ben Hecht. On one side was a cult worshiping a liberal leader and on the other were desperate advertisements such as “For Sale to Humanity 70,000 Jews Guaranteed Human Beings at $50 A Piece” and “Help Prevent 4,000,000 People from Becoming Ghosts”.

None of the Ambassadors for Humanity of the time were interested. Instead they denounced the advertisements, pageants and protests for being too shrill, too abrasive and too hostile to FDR.

The leaders of liberal American Jewry have not changed. They continue handing out awards to their friends and providing cover for anti-Semitic liberal politicians. They clink their glasses and toast each other while their brothers burn. And they do it while exploiting the Holocaust.

Never again means nothing to them. Their apathy and empty internationalist pieties about the peoples of the world are the very “Again” that Never Again was meant to avert.

Genocide is not a threat when it comes from obvious villains. Serial killers aren’t the monsters that everyone fears. They are the friendly next door neighbor with a basement full of bodies.

The Nazis have become omnipresent villains, but before the war they were the personable serial killers next door. The political and economic programs of Germany and Italy were influential in Washington D.C. Hitler’s columns ran in American newspapers and the excuses made for Nazism by the media sound familiar when contrasted with the modern excuses for Islamic terror.

The New York Times wrote that that the “men around Hitler hold diverse views.” The AP assured readers that “Nazi Drive on Jews Under Control Now: US Investigation Shows No Cause for Protest.” INS, a forerunner of UPI, conveyed that the “Hitler regime was doing its best to curb further persecution” of Jews.

The State Department said that physical mistreatment of Jews “may be considered virtually terminated.”

Now the serial killer next door is a friendly Muslim immigrant. No one is allowed to suspect him of anything, profile him or spy on his mosque until the bomb goes off at a synagogue or until the plane flies into a New York skyscraper. He is the moderate PLO leader whose followers call for blood. He is the newly moderate President of Iran, smiling and shaking hands, while the technicians move the radioactive work of genocide forward.

If Never Again is to stand for anything, it must challenge the official reassurances that nothing is wrong even while the fire begins to burn. If the foundations, organizations and assorted rubber chicken party circuit stops that exploit the memory of the Holocaust are to justify their seven-figure fundraisers and six-figure salaries, when a mass movement threatens to kill all the Jews and then kills some Jews, they should at the very least pay attention, instead of making excuses for them and for their politicians.

Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation with its empty awards and vulgar gaiety, its Holocaust jokes and humanitarian trophies isn’t the cure, it’s the disease. It’s not what we ought to be supporting, it’s what we need to be fighting.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

tickletik

I couldn’t read the entire article. The vapid empty mindlessness of these “people” made my stomach twist and churn. I feel sick.

truebearing

Their minds aren’t empty. They are full of themselves. These are the narcissists and sociopaths who are celebrating themselves by celebrating others.

tickletik

I agree

You made me think of an ancient proverb by Hillel.

“אם אין אני לי, מי לי? ואם אני רק בשבילי, מה אני?”

“If I am not for me, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I?”

Someone who is full of “themselves” is nothing. And someone who is a martyr for everyone else is not going to get taken care of.

The right way is to take care of ourselves and to define ourselves also by the good we do for all the people we love in our lives.

These empty sociopathic narcissists have nothing else but their sociopathy and narcissism. That’s why they make normal people sick.

Debbie G

What other group pats themselves on the back more often than the Hollywood bunch? The Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Cannes film festival, Sundance film festival etc. And it’s pretty obvious they are the only ones who care who the winners are.

Joe The Gentile

I tend to see most left-liberals as narcissists more than sociopaths. True sociopaths have a profound dysfunction of the brain impairing emotions in ways we don’t really understand and they are genuinely without a conscience. A way to comprehend true sociopathy might be to imagine the world being one huge video game where other people are just characters in the game–you have no conscience about harming those characters; that might be what it’s like to be a sociopath. Narcissists are so full of themselves and their status and emotionally stunted and can’t emotionally bond and love properly, and that includes to nation and group. Narcissism does not in itself imply impaired conscience, while sociopathy always does. The problem with a narcissist is that he does have a conscience but he’s so full of himself and so unloving that he finds a way to work around it; and/or he has such a distorted view of the world that his conscience is not of that much help to the rest of us. Most of these hollywood left/liberals I think fall into this category.

Daniel Greenfield

I felt sick myself. Hence the article.

krinks

How is it that people who knew and know Holocaust survivors can turn around and support those pushing the same policies today, knowing full well that under Sharia they are dead and buried as well?

Daniel Greenfield

They don’t know the latter and the former is seen by them through a liberal haze.

lyndaaquarius

it’s that horrible “liberal haze” that must be challenged.”mr.Spielberg,which of Mr. Castro’s policies do you admire most and why?””how do you reconcile his imprisonment and torture of those who disagree with his policies?” Spielberg couldn’t defend one of Castro’s evil policies with any intelligence.You notice that Hollywood never makes films exposing the Soviet Gulags? “

Drakken

Because they truly believe that nothing bad could ever possibly happen to them.

Judahlevi

Obama should be shunned at a Holocaust event not only because he is doing nothing to prevent another one, but also because his ideology was the driving force for the first one.

Obama is the essence of a collectivist. He sees everyone by grouping them and then judging the group. His collective thinking is the basis for movements such as Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. It is the denial of the individual and the elevation of the state, the Fatherland or the Party.

He is part of the problem, not the solution.

Tim

Well said.

Tradecraft46

He has plenty of Jewish support, and some like Barbara Walters thought, for a least a while that he was the messiah.

carpe diem 36

yes, the Messiah from HE!!

carpe diem 36

obama is nothing but a piece of meat, no heart no brain, i do not know why God created him and why the dumb DemocRats inflicted him on all of us. I have never been so disgusted in all my life. I do not think either Spielbert or Obama will read this, I hope someone willk show this to them. I do not believe they will see anything wrong with what they did or else they would not have done it. I guess money trumps everything, even desecrating graves and memories of those Martyrs.

NJK

I don’t think God created him, I think Satan did.

truthtroll

you do know Zionism was founded by Socialists right? and the founding of the modern state of Israel was/is very much of a “collectivist” nature.

NYgal

A while ago I watched a documentary on PBS where old time socialists and communist stated that they have nothing in common and cannot relate to the New Left of the 1960s.

The is a world of difference between socialists and communists, and there is a world of difference between the left back then and now. After all, back then Guardian was all out pro-Zionist.

Collectivist nature of early Israel was an outgrowth of the times before founding of Israel when only a group working together could reclaim the rocky land, dry the malarial swamps and defend against murdering Arabs and Bedouins.
As soon as the country grew economically, collective farms started to disappear one by one.

SCREW SOCIALISM

The USA was founded by slave holders, right? But the US ended slavery.

Similarly Israel dropped socialism.

The USA under Socialist Democrats is on the road to ruin.

reader

Yes, but one thing Ben Gurion did that would make “the left” – and Stalin, in particular, – completely loose it was that he disarmed and marginalized Israeli Communists.

kikorikid

You forgot “Islamism”. It too has that Totalitarian
flavor.

David

“Obama had forced Israel to release the murderer of Isaac Rotenburg.”

No, Netanyahu could have said “no”. As critical as I am of Obama, at the end of the day that was Netanyahu’s choice.

“Kushner who turned it into an indictment of Israel and a defense of the terrorists.”

Actually, he mostly just remade Sword of Gideon.

Daniel Greenfield

Netanyahu should have said no, but that’s not exactly his specialty. It doesn’t however changed the fact that Obama pressured him into that move.

SCREW SOCIALISM

It would be just for Netanyahu, or someone else, to release the details of Obamas pressure on Israel.

ahad_ha_amoratsim

He spun plenty of lies in order to make Israel look worse.

Abberline

Yes “Sword of Gideon” was a cable movie from the late 1980’s and although historically inaccurate, was a better film than “Munich”.

truebearing

Spielberg is not a stupid man, nor is he lacking in worldly awareness, yet he has a massive moral blindspot. What is causing it?

“Schindler’s List” is a powerful, gut-wrenching movie, with a protagonist, Oscar Schindler, who is a wealthy man that profits substantially from the N azi war machine, but who decides to save as many Jews from extermination as he can, despite the evident risk to his own life. That is a compelling character arc — from a war profiteer to a man willing to lose everything for others. The epitome of altruism. Clearly, Spielberg recognised this moral progression from selfishness to selflessness as something movie goers would find appealing. Schindler was the perfect contrast to the evil of the holocaust. We can conclude from “Schindler’s List” that Spielberg recognizes the difference between good and evil, and has a deep admiration for those who show empathy for others…maybe.

Barack Obama has facilitated Iran getting nukes. He’s supplied Al Queda with weapons, some of which may have been used in the raid in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other brave Americans. He wouldn’t send them military aid or avenge their deaths. Obama has routinely bullied, demeaned, criticized, and leveraged Israel, while praising Palestinian terrorists. He has enabled Muslim causes, and immigration into the US, while blocking Israeli students. I could go on for a considerable amount of time listing more evidence of Obama’s enabling of those who have openly and repeatedly expressed the fervent desire to wipe out Israel, and all Jews. This is all readily accessible fact.

So why is Spielberg able to recognise goodness in a historical character, but remain blind to the evil of a leader who has enabled Muslims who would kill him too, if the time was right? Is Spielberg a sociopath that has learned how to manipulate human emotion through the medium of film, for profit and fame, but has no empathy in real life? He’s proudly giving Obama an award that makes less sense than Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, which I didn’t think was possible. Ambassador for Humanity? More like Ambassador of Evil.

The character arc in Spielberg’s life isn’t looking very appealing.

http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

I hate to make it seem like a simple mistake but Spielberg has no idea of viewpoints outside the leftist cocoon. He wouldn’t be caught dead reading FPM or talking to David Horowitz for an afternoon. It’s very rare for a brain-dead leftist to reconsider their worldview. How many David Mamet’s are there?

That being said, it is the moral duty of every human being to reason and face reality, especially the reality that threatens the lives in innocent people. I fault Spielberg for keeping himself ignorant and refusing to learn about the continued threat to mankind and his fellow Jews.

truebearing

I agree completely. Spielberg has a moral black hole, but he is able to manipulate emotions through films showing moral courage, or some other positive trait. My point was to suggest that like Obama, Soros, and the rest of the Left’s leaders, Spielberg is a sociopath, whether by birth or indoctrination. Sociopaths learn to manipulate the emotions of others from an early age, and frequently become quite successful.

If you think about it, film and politics aren’t all that different. Narratives that manipulate emotions are the life blood of both. Lawyers and politicians have the most sociopaths represented in their ranks. I think we should add film makers to that list. Film is one of the most potent tools for propaganda, and any sociopath would instantly recognize that totalitarian control of an emotion manipulating narrative means control of how the viewers think. Look at the damage done to society by “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.”

The reason it is important to identify sociopaths, or psychopaths, and their prevalence in a particular profession or political party, is that they have no conscience, which tells us they ultimately have no moral restraint in getting what they want. When you combine sociopathology with an ideology like Marxism, you have the perfect combination for totalitarianism and its attendant atrocities. Islam is even worse. If these people control popular culture, we are in big trouble.

A lot of people on FPM already know this, but there are plenty who don’t, and my purpose was to attach terms of aberrant psychology to those on the Left, in this case Spielberg. The Left isn’t just the opposition party. It is a cult that attracts like a magnet the deranged, depraved, and conscienceless power-mongers of any society. In my opinion, we should attach commonly understood stigma in the form of labels such as “sociopath” to these sociopaths. Let them wear a scarlet letter, but let it be one from the field of psychology for a change.

Seek

How exactly did “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” damage our society? Ken Kesey’s novel was possessed of a powerful libertarian instinct, and the movie was every bit as good.

truebearing

The liberals used the movie as leverage to destroy our societies ability to institutionalize insane people. They went nuts with the patient’s rights stuff and we ended up with dangerous psychotics running willy-nilly all over the country. They are frequently homeless, they exacerbate their unstable mental condition with drugs, and many are violent. They also acquire guns, and then use them on innocent people.

Seek

To blame misguided homeless activists like the late Mitch Snyder on “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” is pretty ridiculous. If anything, Snyder and his ilk was inspired Catholic Liberation Theology. Snyder himself said as much.

lyndaaquarius

always goes back to Marxism,doesn’t it?

NJK

Sometimes I just look at my spouse and say, what is wrong with these people? I think you’re right, that they are insane, and we need to start looking at them as insane. There’s no point racking our brains trying to figure it out, we just need to crush them, before they crush us.

Drakken

Reality doesn’t register with folks like Spielberg and others of his ilk until the door get kicked in and they look on in utter amazement and horror that it is happening. They will have their wonderful cocktail parties and stroke each others egos while the world burns around them and finally consumes them. There is no amount of self awareness amongst them.

tickletik

Because he’s a three year old in the body of an adult. There is some background to how Schindlers list got made, basically his mom had a good friend who was an activist for holocaust survivors, this friend pushed her to get her son to do something genuine for once in his childlike existence, and that’s what she did. As I heard the story from that guy, she put her foot down and insisted.

truebearing

Thanks for sharing that. I had always wondered about the genesis of Spielberg doing a holocaust movie.

It seems that Spielberg is very talented at moving the pieces around to get a desired effect, but isn’t truly the creative genius he pretends to be. As I suggested, he fits the description of a sociopath, as do nearly all powerful leftists.

Daniel Greenfield

Spielberg is a stupid man. He also happens to be a talented director.

I did not like SL, but it’s hard to say how much of the credit for that goes to the writer and how much to Spielberg. So if you admire its character arc, you more likely admire the work of Steven Zaillian (Moneyball, Clear and Present Danger, Gangs of New York). Not to mention the book’s actual author.

I would also question whether the progression from selfishness to selflessness is necessarily good.

Some Nazis also progressed that way, but the selflessness they were giving themselves to was evil.

The same is true of Communists or many leftists today.

Sacrifice still requires moral awareness. Otherwise it’s the Muslim suicide bomber who selflessly dies killing innocent civilians in the name of his deity.

The real Schindler was a more complicated and interesting figure than the movie version. I would have liked to see that man on film because he was both a worse and a better man.

tagalog

Band of Brothers was an outstanding war film, as was the first half-hour of Finding Private Ryan. I respect his devotion of authenticity in props, firearms, ordnance, dress, and the like in war movies; it is so easy to do it wrong.
However, Speilberg went over the top in The Pacific and made a poor movie that dwelt far too much on the horrors and gore. It made it impossible to understand the positive attitudes of the characters Robert Leckie and Sidney Phillips, who were in as much combat in as bad conditions as the character Sledge, yet bounced back rather quickly, unless Sledge was supposed to be PTSD or something.

Seek

Spielberg’s “War Horse” (2011) also was an outstanding film, and an effective commentary on the cruelty and mindlessness of WWI.

Daniel Greenfield

Spielberg focuses so hard on the externals because he can’t get ‘inside’ and bring the people to life.

MukeNecca

“Spielberg is a stupid man. He also happens to be a talented director.”

He certainly is a stupid man.
Otherwise he is a talented juggler of sentimental and politically correct gimmicks.

Debbie G

Apparently, he is also a mama’s boy, if you read tickletik’s post!

truebearing

I agree with you that selflessness can be a negative thing, and you very effectively argued why that is, but if you read the lines preceding the one on selflessness, I qualified the selflessness of the Schindler character as an act of ultimate altruism. He was willing to risk his life to save others, as opposed to Muslims or N azis who are willing to lose theirs to destroy others. Selflessness is neutral, until a moral qualifier is attached.

My suspicion was that Spielberg’s “creativity” in “Schindler’s List” was somewhat parasitic. The more I know about him, the more I am convinced that he is a sociopath who has mastered the evil art of manipulating others to create his desired effect. He is a director, after all, and Hollywood’s history is replete with ruthless, manipulative, conscienceless directors…and producers, and actors.

The reason I wanted to focus on character arc is that it is the core device film makers use to create compelling characters, which sell tickets. It appears that Spielberg has a superficial understanding of the concept, or as you suggested, takes the credit but relies on others for that critical area of character development. Therefore, he is not the great film maker he would have us believe he is. He is a great manipulator of talented film makers. He controls the means of production…but is a leftist.

hiernonymous

You seem to be diagnosing with sociopathy those with whom you disagree with some regularity these days. It’s unseemly.

truebearing

Maybe I don’t like sociopaths. Do you have a problem with that?

It’s not unseemly in the least. Especially considering that I am discussing leftists or jihadists most of the time when on FPM. Sometimes I even debate them.

People who display a conspicuous lack of empathy and moral clarity are likely to score high on the sociopathy scale, and that certainly fits leftist power mongers and Muslim jihadists.

It is my belief that Marxism and Islam create sociopaths. The combination of being taught anti-ethical principles, eg. “the ends justify the means,” combined with the group dynamics of collective thinking, where individuals abrogate their individual moral responsibility, results in sociopathic behavior. The results can be horrible, such as in the Holocaust.

This topic seems to make you uncomfortable and somewhat hostile. Why would that be?

hiernonymous

“By which definition?”

2.

“People who display a conspicuous lack of empathy and moral clarity are
likely to score high on the sociopathy scale, and that certainly fits
leftist power mongers and Muslim jihadists.”

Pseudo-intellectual twaddle. “Leftist power mongers” is simply your cant for those you disagree with. As for Muslim jihadists, I suspect that you’d find that they display a high degree of moral clarity. It’s not a morality with which many of us could agree, but a moment’s reflection will reveal that the sort of moral clarity a jihadist possesses is of a kind with the sort of moral clarity that leads a more physically timid but no less self-righteous type to, say, define Jews with which he disagrees as non-Jews, or fellow citizens with whom he disagrees as mentally ill. Neither can tolerate the idea that there are perfectly sane, competent, and good people out there who nonetheless do not share his political beliefs.

“This topic seems to make you uncomfortable and somewhat hostile. Why would that be?”

Because smearing one’s political opponents as mentally ill is a cheap and intellectually lazy failure of logic and decorum. It’s the triumph of spleen over reason.

truebearing

“(2)contrary to accepted standards of good taste or appropriate behavior”

Who has these standards? Certainly not the Left. They have made an art form of smearing those they disagree with. Certainly not the Muslims. They adhere to a religion that encourages them to kill those that won’t submit to Islam. Your pomposity won’t be sufficient as a credible polemic here.

“Pseudo-intellectual twaddle”
Would that be the opposite of your genuine intellectual twaddle? You being the expert on twaddle.

“Leftist power monger” is a perfect description of the psychology and objectives of every leftist alive. ideologies based on purportedly inexorable dialectical progression, and eventual world domination are the definition of power mongering. Power is the god of the Left, not that you are honest enough to admit it.

“As for Muslim jihadists, I suspect that you’d find that they display a high degree of moral clarity. It’s not a morality with which many of us could agree, but a moment’s reflection will reveal that the sort of moral clarity a jihadist possesses is of a kind with the sort of moral clarity that leads a more physically timid but no less self-righteous type to, say, define Jews with which he disagrees as non-Jews, or fellow citizens with whom he disagrees as mentally ill. Neither can tolerate the idea that there are perfectly sane, competent, and good people out there who nonetheless do not share his political beliefs.

First of all, you have no moral clarity, so you have no standing in commmenting on morality. Any idiot who thinks that adherents to a religion that encourages rape, slavery, or murder have moral clarity has no understanding of morality or clarity. Pure relativistic hogwash.
According to your warped “understanding” of moral clarity, a suicide bomber with the conviction he’s doing the morally right thing, as he prepares to detonate an explosive vest on a bus full of children, is morally equal to someone who defines “Jew” as someone who practices Judaism faithfully, and disallows those who adhere to a contradictory set of beliefs. Let me distill this further: a man who offers his opinion, based on his well considered beliefs, is morally the same as a man who premeditately blows up a busload of innocent children.

That is a moronic moral equivalency. It is really quite sick, and shows just how unhinged you’ve become in your convoluted, relativistic, intellectual labyrinth. You are verging on some kind of solipsism.

Your definition of “moral clarity” would be interesting to read. It apparently means that if person believes fervently that rape is morally good, then a moral man who acts on his belief has moral clarity, regardless the damage he is inflicting on the victims of his “morality.”

You said it was “unseemly” for me to suggest Spielberg might be a sociopath. You chose a definition of “unseemly” that turned on “accepted standards of good taste and appropriate behavior.” Is rape an accepted standard of good taste, or is murder an appropriate behavior?

Your desperate attempt to work in an insult by suggesting that the evil Jihadist is physically brave in his self-righteousness, while Daniel and I are timid, yet equally self-righteous, is a perfect testimony to your inveterate malice. The Jihadist is brave because he is killing non-believers, and according to you, has moral clarity. Daniel and I are self-righteous because we have opinions you don’t agree with, and can’t tolerate, so you try to equate us with vile psychopaths.

Neither Daniel or I ever said that everyone we disagree with is insane (though it seems perfectly likely). That is just a spiteful attempt to get even with us for disagreeing with you over your inability to understand the phrase: “You can’t serve two masters.” Either way, it was childish and nonsensical.

You had better do more than “a moments reflection” on your next argument.

hiernonymous

“Let me distill this further: a man who offers his opinion, based on his well considered beliefs, is morally the same as a man who premeditately blows up a busload of innocent children.”

Distilling an argument means to capture its essence. In this case, it was already done for you, yet you managed to ignore it. The similarity I drew was actually explicitly stated in my post: “Neither can tolerate the idea that there are perfectly sane, competent, and good people out there who nonetheless do not share his political beliefs.”

It appears that you are unprepared to address that argument, so you attempted to create a straw man around which to manufacture, not a reasoned argument, but your depressingly familiar wall of hysteria.

“Leftist power monger” is a perfect description of the psychology and objectives of every leftist alive. ideologies based on purportedly inexorable dialectical progression, and eventual world domination are the definition of power mongering.

Now that was actually helpful and revealing. The characteristics you just described are elements of Communism. That you ascribe them to all “leftists” suggests that you are either unable to distinguish the many, many political schools of thought that fall to the left of center, or that you are being actively misleading in trying to paint all with the most unfavorable brush available to you. Either way, it reveals sloppy thinking.

“Your definition of “moral clarity” would be interesting to read. ”

“Moral clarity” is actually a political slogan, not an ethical or philosophical term of art. What definition would you suggest, such that my comments vid-a-vis your exclusionary foray and, say, Sayyid Qutb’s redefinition of “Muslim” would not both apply?

“You said it was “unseemly” for me to suggest Spielberg might be a sociopath. You chose a definition of “unseemly” that turned on “accepted standards of good taste and appropriate behavior.” Is rape an accepted standard of good taste, or is murder an appropriate behavior?”

Why, no, rape is not an accepted standard of good taste, and murder is not an appropriate behavior. Neither fact excuses your own inappropriate behavior in smearing those you disagree with as sociopathic.

“Your desperate attempt to work in an insult by suggesting that the evil Jihadist is physically brave in his self-righteousness, while Daniel and I are timid, yet equally self-righteous, is a perfect testimony to your inveterate malice.”

If that were so, it would not render the observation incorrect. You are employing Qutb’s tactics, though you are not taking Qutb’s risks.

“Neither Daniel or I ever said that everyone we disagree with is insane (though it seems perfectly likely). That is just a spiteful attempt to get even…”

No, it’s a conclusion drawn from the frequency with which you level the accusation of mental illness at your “enemies.” Your parenthetical comment confirms the mindset.

The last thing I’d want is to ever find myself even with you.

Daniel Greenfield

“Because smearing one’s political opponents as mentally ill is a cheap and intellectually lazy failure of logic and decorum. It’s the triumph of spleen over reason.”

I think we can all appreciate a good hypocritical lecture from a hypocritical troll.

hiernonymous

Daniel, good to see you back in the conversation. Were you getting ready to finally explain what, specifically, a liberal believes that prevents him from being Jewish? You’ve been avoiding this for days.

not a reasoned argument, but your depressingly familiar wall of hysteria.”

“The last thing I’d want is to ever find myself even with you.”

I think we can all appreciate a good hypocritical lecture from a hypocritical troll.

Accusing others of mental illness is not reasoned argument, but hysteria. Willfully mischaracterizing an argument is not reasoned argument, but hysteria.
Pointing that out, and expressing a desire to not fall to the same level, is hardly hypocrisy. But the accusation serves to distract from your continuing failure to substantiate your claim that liberals cannot be Jews and vice versa.

It would be interesting to see if you can ever stop squirming long enough to man up to your original contention and make it explicit. It’s not a trick question. You say a liberal can’t be Jewish: what, specifically, does a liberal believe that you think prevents him from being Jewish?

Read more carefully; it is the comment that is referred to as a wall of hysteria; I have not accused anyone of being mentally ill. That’s your M.O.

Oh, and what is it, specifically, that all liberals believe that prevents them from being Jewish?

Daniel Greenfield

The comment comes from the person. Your attack states that it is common behavior for him.

That is a personal attack.

hiernonymous

“The comment comes from the person. Your attack states that it is common behavior for him.”

You’ve just redefined the critique of any comment by any person as a personal attack.

I also invite your attention back to the key issue, which is not whether there has been a personal attack, but whether that personal attack is substituting for an argument.

In this case truebearing has now made three accusations of sociopathy in the past two days. How, exactly, is making note of that a “personal attack?”

Perhaps if, instead of pointing out the problems with that pattern of accusation, I started speculating on the personality defects of the commenter that led him to make such comments, I’d have crossed that line. But I don’t plan to do that.

And have you managed to think of a tenet or belief of all liberals that renders them I eligible to be Jewish yet? You seem to be taking a remarkably long time articulating a sound basis for your contention.

Daniel Greenfield

You’re not just critiquing the comment. You are claiming that it is a pattern of behavior by that commenter.

hiernonymous

I’ve identified a pattern to the commentary, certainly. Are you suggesting that there is an ad hominem there?

And where is your identification of the universal liberal tenet that precludes being Jewish?

Daniel Greenfield

You’ve identified a pattern of behavior by a person, applied your own diagnosis and used it as a personal attack.

Something you keep condemning.

hiernonymous

I’ve offered no “diagnosis.” As for noting a pattern of commentary as a personal attack, I disagree. If you can show that I’ve been guilty of ad hominem, I’d certainly take steps to avoid that. I don’t like committing errors of logic. Can you show that I’ve done so?

Now, about those Jewish liberals…why, exactly, don’t they exist?

truebearing

“Accusing others of mental illness is not reasoned argument, but hysteria. Willfully mischaracterizing an argument is not reasoned argument, but hysteria.”

If a person’s behavior fits a psychological category, it is hardly “hysteria” to equate them. You accuse me of “hysteria” for suggesting sociopathy is prevalent in the leadership of the Left. What is hysterical about that? Do you know the definition of the word? And why is it legitimate for you to use terms of psychology to attack me when you find it so “unseemly” when I use it in a theory explaining Spielberg’s cold behavior? It seems you are a hypocrite, at the very least.

You also willfully mischaracterized my theory on Spielberg, inflating it to include anyone I disagree with. Yet another hypocrisy and poorly reasoned argument on your part. Maybe you are the one who is hysterical.

hiernonymous

“Hysteria” has not been a psychiatric diagnosis for 34 years. There is no clinical usage of the term anymore, only the colloquial. Do try to keep up.

“You also willfully mischaracterized my theory on Spielberg, inflating it to include anyone I disagree with. ”

I’ve seen you disagree with two people in as many days. You leveled that accusation at both. That’s a pattern. Recognize that and learn from it.

Do you really need to have it explained to you that resorting to clinical diagnoses of those you disagree with is inappropriate? If all you meant was that you find those people “cold,” then say so. You’re actually qualified to make that observation.

Daniel Greenfield

“Do you really need to have it explained to you that resorting to clinical diagnoses of those you disagree with is inappropriate?”

So maybe you should stop doing it.

hiernonymous

What did I write that you believe to have been a clinical diagnosis?

lyndaaquarius

why can’t you just express your appreciation to Daniel Greenfield for all his brilliant efforts to save our Republic and stop with the annoying nit picking!

hiernonymous

I am expressing my appreciation, dear.

For your second question – because nits carry disease.

truebearing

Your pathetic attempt to turn this into a critique of form instead of content is standard practice with you. You made a ridiculous false moral equivalency, I called you on it, so you obfuscate the issue by trying to change the topic.

My distillation was of your idiotic argument, which you clearly couldn’t defend.

“Now that was actually helpful and revealing. The characteristics you just described are elements of Communism. That you ascribe them to all “leftists” suggests that you are either unable to distinguish the many, many political schools of thought that fall to the left of center, or that you are being actively misleading in trying to paint all with the most unfavorable brush available to you. Either way, it reveals sloppy thinking.”

All derivations of Marxism lead to totalitarianism. You are once again, playing the role of obscurantist, trying to make simple truths complex, or as you would say, “nuanced.” I hate that word. Out of the mouths of people like you it means deception. Regardless of which statist wet dream Marx inspired, they all ended up as totalitarian disasters, as will the coup Obama is the face of in this country, if it succeeds. You will try to obscure the simple truth with the forked-tongue posturing of the sophisticate, but you don’t fool me.

“”Moral clarity” is actually a political slogan, not an ethical or philosophical term of art.”

This is as close to honest as you get. You just admitted that you can’t define it, and the reason is because you don’t believe in morality to begin with. To you, the concepts of “right” and “wrong” are quaint anachronisms to be toyed with in some empty intellectual game. You think moral clarity means clarity of purpose, as you implied with your jihadist example. This is your great failing and emptiness. This is why you couldn’t understand the simple truth: “you can’t serve two masters.” You still don’t.

“Why, no, rape is not an accepted standard of good taste, and murder is not an appropriate behavior. Neither fact excuses your own inappropriate behavior in smearing those you disagree with as sociopathic.”

So you couldn’t effectively defend that attack either. Strip away all of your razzle-dazzle and obscure references and you don’t do so well when it comes to a debate. You never established a definition of “inappropriate behavior,” for one thing, and make an unsupported accusation that I was “smearing” people by suggesting they evince behavior suggesting they may be sociopathic. Of course, i could have used “narcissistic” to describe Spielberg, but extreme narcisissism is hard to differentiate from sociopathy when it is severe. It doesn’t really matter. I was, and still am, suggesting that Spielberg is a cold, heartless person with little to no empathy (that is emotional understanding, since I suspect you are likewise challenged). His only consideration seems to be his fame, success, wealth, etc. That isn’t smearing. That is offering a theoretical opinion on a comment section. Try to remember where you are.

Why didn’t you challenge my theory on the merits instead of smearing me by accusing me of smearing Spielberg? Why didn’t you present an argument that countered my perceptions? You ignored defending Spielberg in your zeal to attack me. You tried to imply that I label anyone I disagree with as a sociopath. That is not only not true, but proves you make accusations with insufficient evidence, ie resort to smearing. You are in no position to make that judgement since you haven’t been present during the thousands of debates I’ve had with people I don’t agree with. Sometimes, in fact, I disagree with people I hold in high regard, but only on a particular point. Once again. Your argument was more of an attack than a well reasoned polemic.

I wrote: “”Neither Daniel or I ever said that everyone we disagree with is insane (though it seems perfectly likely). That is just a spiteful attempt to get even…”

And you responded in a telling way:

“No, it’s a conclusion drawn from the frequency with which you level the accusation of mental illness at your “enemies.” Your parenthetical comment confirms the mindset.”

My parenthetical comment was meant to be humorous, you buffoon! The irony is that your response has me laughing at you when I intended it as a self-deprecating bit of humor. If you had a sense of humor, and if you have read many of my comments on FPM, you would find that I frequently attempt to make ironic comments that I intend to be humorous. Maybe you’re projecting too much of your own dessicated personality onto me.

hiernonymous

“You made a ridiculous false moral equivalency, I called you on it…”

Why, no. You invented a ridiculous false moral equivalency and ranted about it. At length. What I presented to you was an unpleasant realization about the meaning and value of your favored catchphrase “moral clarity.”

” I hate that word. Out of the mouths of people like you it means deception.”

You hate that word because it interrupts the flow of your incessant generalizations and rants. In this case, the idea that everyone that is remotely left of center is a Marxist is absurd.

“This is as close to honest as you get. You just admitted that you can’t define it, and the reason is because you don’t believe in morality to begin with. ”

No, I just noted that it is not a philosophical or ethical term of art. The phrase is a political catchphrase, generally used by those of a particular political persuasion, not in any ethically meaningful sense, but as a general justification of their worldview. Those who disagree with them lack “moral clarity.” You might consider researching the phrase.

“So you couldn’t effectively defend that attack either. Strip away all of your razzle-dazzle and obscure references and you don’t do so well when it comes to a debate. ”

Interesting that you think so. Following a red herring is generally not considered debating best practice, but if I don’t meet your own peculiar standards, I can live with that.

“You never established a definition of “inappropriate behavior,” for one thing, and make an unsupported accusation that I was “smearing” people by suggesting they evince behavior suggesting they may be sociopathic. Of course, i could have used “narcissistic” to describe Spielberg, but extreme narcisissism is hard to differentiate from sociopathy when it is severe. It doesn’t really matter.”

It’s remarkable that you need to have it explained to you that making accusations of mental illness is inappropriate in all but the most extraordinary circumstances. You’re correct, it doesn’t really matter whether your diagnosis was sociopathy or narcissism, neither is appropriate. Narcissism, at least, has a colloquial use that might have been defensible, had you not just made it clear that you were speaking clinically.

“You tried to imply that I label anyone I disagree with as a sociopath. That is not only not true, but proves you make accusations with insufficient evidence, ie resort to smearing. You are in no position to make that judgement since you haven’t been present during the thousands of debates I’ve had…”

You’ve done it twice in as many conversations in as many days. You’ve accused me of it, and as I am in a pretty good position to evaluate that particular gem, I can safely say that you use the accusation inappropriately and against those with whom you disagree. If you don’t like being called on it, I heartily suggest that you stop doing it..

“Why didn’t you challenge my theory on the merits instead of smearing me by accusing me of smearing Spielberg?”

On its what? Leveling psychiatric diagnoses is not “theory.”

” I intended it as a self-deprecating bit of humor. ”

Self-deprecating humor pokes gentle fun at oneself. If your parenthetical had suggested that maybe you and Daniel were the crazy ones, that would have been identifiable as “self-deprecating humor.” But as you’ve instead offered an unbroken stream of spleen, complete with insults and accusations of mental illness, the sudden injection of what you assert was just a joke would be jarringly inappropriate in tone. If you are that inept at communication, don’t mewl about the other’s lack of “a sense of humor” when your joke falls flat.

Daniel Greenfield

…

“the sudden injection of what you assert was just a joke would be
jarringly inappropriate in tone. If you are that inept at
communication, don’t mewl about the other’s lack of “a sense of humor”
when your joke falls flat.”

Why is that the professionally humorless are always self-proclaimed experts on what’s funny.

hiernonymous

What did I write that you think was incorrect?

truebearing

“The last thing I’d want is to ever find myself even with you.”

Likewise. (assuming you meant to have “is” follow “with”)

But you would try to get even, as in take revenge, which is how I used the phrase, and precisely what you did in your nasty reply. The fact is, and you proved it in your comment (below) to Daniel, you are still angry over the last exchanges we had on the topic of Spielberg. Curiously, you never offered any defense of Spielberg, but persisted in an attack-by-nitpick over Daniel’s assertion that Spielberg isn’t a Jew given his behavior and values. My suggestion that “you can’t serve two masters” only intensified your frantic need to reduce everything to components small enough for you to understand.

As usual, you didn’t opine on the topic of the article. You are only interested in criticizing the positions of others. Not offering your own. It suggests that you fear criticism so you stay on the offensive. Well, you’ve succeeded in part. You are offensive.

Daniel Greenfield

I don’t think S is even much of an emotional manipulator except at a very blunt level. Subtlety is not a major point there.

S, like so many of his peers, is a case of emotional and moral arrested development.

truebearing

“Spielberg is a stupid man.”

I don’t think Spielberg deserves the excuse of being considered stupid. He wallows in adoration for his creativity and intelligence, so he should be held all the more responsible for his moral failings. There is no doubt he’s seriously flawed, and he does some amazingly stupid things, like giving this award to Obama, which renders it meaningless, if he is to be considered stupid, it is willful stupidity. There is a choice inherent in his stupidity.

Daniel Greenfield

By stupid, I mean the mediocre intelligence of the average liberal that is satisfied with echoing back its own cliches and is incapable of thinking beyond them. It’s quite common here even among those with high IQs.

He is arrogant, obviously, but it’s hard to be successful and rich in a creative industry without becoming arrogant and that goes double for Hollywood which tends to insulate the people at the top in bubbles of ego massaging.

carpe diem 36

awesome comment!!! God bless you

Lightbringer

You provid great insights here. Thanks. It’s tempting to dismiss Spielberg and his fantasyland colleagues as contemptible, irrelevant lightweights, but we the people have lost the culture war because of them, and that makes our political re-ascendendence far more difficult than it would otherwise have been.

Debbie G

Love your posts, Truebearing. After reading your sharp analysis of Spielberg’s character, I think I’ll go along with your idea of “profit and fame,” like most Hollywood types. Ego-trippers.

lyndaaquarius

Remember when Spielberg said that the “greatest 8 hours of his life were spent with Fidel Castro”? As Rush says “skulls full of mush”. Spielberg may have a high IQ,but he’s not very shrewd or wise.Easily duped by the mushiness of his Leftist thinking. He’s a sucker for “compassion”,”fairness” and “equality”.I feel that we’re moving into a time when such foolish/dangerous people like Spielberg will be mocked for their stupidity and forced to defend it. The followers of the Left are childish and the leaders of the Left are hateful and insecure. Spielberg is a child.

TheOrdinaryMan

Spielberg, Kushner, and the Prez should be required to spend two years living in the Anne Frank house, in Amsterdam; and somehow be made to worry that every time they use the bathroom, someone two floors below will betray them to the Nazis. Who betrayed Anne Frank? One of their employees, probably. Who is betraying the Jewish people? No mystery there–Spielberg, Kushner, and the Prez.

tickletik

Please dear lord no. Those disgusting wretched imitations of people would whore the entire memory of that girl out for whatever sickness they need to fulfill. Come on man, think about who you are talking about!

carpe diem 36

so many Jews voted for Obama and they are pure evil. Not to see that this P O S of a human being (sic) is not only not deserving of the presidency, he is not deserving the description of a “human being”, nothing human about him that I can see.

Chavi Beck

They are pure stupid. It doesn’t take evil to allow evil, it only takes blindness, which could have many causes.

Jews leave communist countries where they’re persecuted, only to come here & regroup with their Socialist idealogy. Could never understand that.

Ray

Some Jews. Maybe 50% to 70%. I would assume that many of those came from the “Pale settlements” or elsewhere in the Russian empire.

Think of it in boxing terms. It is a 1 2 punch. The persecution and discrimination alone is not enough to explain such a long love affair.

The disenfranchised want to remake the existing system. The Jews supported the 1917 Revolution hoping for something better. They had experienced pogroms and the Pale settlements. This is understandable. that is the 1st punch.
You have to remember that just like when the Irish reached the New World that there were Irish politicians waiting to help them and help them vote. there is truth to the scenes in the movie “Far and away” showing the Irish politicians helping new arrivals. The same would be true of newly arrived Jews arriving in NYC with little money, some discrimination, and nothing but expenses when they step off the boat. that would be the 2nrd punch.
Consider African-Americans. their families were largely intact after the persecution of slaver and subsequent discrimination. That was the first punch. The second punch was Democrat policies.

Daniel Greenfield

The Irish comparison is quite apt since the Tammany Hall political machine (the name isn’t Irish) had been running for some time during the period of Jewish immigration and was quite good at absorbing immigrants and turning them into Dem voters.

The significant factor with Jews lay in the collapse of religion and tradition leaving them basically rootless.

There were several phases of Jewish immigration, from Spanish Jews to German Jews to Russian Jews Phase I and Phase II. Phase II was mainly Czarist/Early Soviet. Phase II was Soviet and those tend to be conservative.

lyndaaquarius

my grandmother actually remembered seeing the Irish ships met by other Irish with jobs and resources at the ready. The Irish were very politically organized from the git go. They were used to communal living and interdependency. Political animals.

carpe diem 36

as those old Jewish Communists used to say “the system is good but the execution was bad, we should make a better execution (of communism) in this country, and their descendants are the ones who voted for Obama, Yimach Shemo!!

ahad_ha_amoratsim

Not the ones who actually left. Their grandchildren and great grandchildren.

reader

Not true. East European Jews vote in reverse proportion to the American Jews: about 70-75% Republican, even though many old newcomers rely on the government assistance.

Bulan Sabriel

You are quite wrong. Jews who fled communist countries or whose parents have are generally anti-socialist. The problem are the Jews whose grandparents or great grandparents came here prior to 1920. Those Jews pray at the altar of FDR.

SCREW SOCIALISM

You are wrong.

The Russian Jews who came to the US are very right wing in Israel and the USA.

It’s the Jews who have lived in the US for generations who are left wing. 95% of black voters voted for Obama. Do you blame Jews for black voting history?

Rick

“To be appointed Ambassador for Humanity you have to run a Hollywood studio or be a top Democrat. If Hillary Clinton isn’t named Ambassador for Humanity next year, it will only be because the world ended.”

This is very dry humor. This humor should not work if all was right with the world or if American foreign policy and politics was ran well. It wouldn’t work.

That it depresses a person so much and yet is so hysterical at the same time is a very damning indictment of a clique of people, their moral code intelligence and policies.

You can argue if it is a technique or a gift to write so well, but this humor is well written.

Daniel Greenfield

Sadly this is the caliber of self-absorbed nitwits who run things now.

Libslayer

Liberals care deeply for “Humanity”.
It’s “humans” they can’t stand.
Particularly those who disagree with them.

Seek

Red State culture warriors care deeply about culture — as long as they can transform it into an act of nonstop political war.

Rick

“Obama told an audience … how he would like to help the Nigerian girls kidnapped by an Islamic terrorist group that his administration fought to keep off the terrorist list, but he just can’t.”

Israel is ending a team of people to help find and secure the release of the Nigerian girls. Look at the relative size of Israel and the U.S. on the map. The U.S. is not doing much more than Israel, because he does not want to do much more. He just wants to be seen as caring.

amazing!! Little Israel is doing all the right things that at one time America was expected to do, but with the Dimmocrats it will never happen. they do not have this in them.

Libslayer

But Obama has a twitter hashtag.
And his intentions, as always, are pure.
The terrorists are trembling at the thought of another hard-hitting tweet from Michelle, barack’s new terrorism czar.

lyndaaquarius

the world needs Israel.

barry David

You are correct about everything except the Movie Munich. I watched it again recently. Although I was expecting Kushners Screenplay to be Anti Israel. I actually found it quite accurate in making the Israelis look heroic. Which part of the movie did you find Pro Palestian? I thought it showed them to be the savages that they are…

Daniel Greenfield

You came in with a preconception about who the bad guys and the good guys were and kept it throughout the movie, but that’s not its message.

barry David

I am curious which scenes you found that message? It showed the terrorists murdering innocent Israelis. It showed Golda Meir being strong and seeking revenge. Sure, it had one scene where the terrorist tried to justify their actions. But isn’t what they normally do?

Daniel Greenfield

Instead of discussing subjective impressions, let me just post the view of the book’s author

Spielberg’s “Munich” follows the letter of my book closely enough. The spirit is almost the opposite. Vengeance holds there is a difference between terrorism and counterterrorism; “Munich” suggests there isn’t. The book has no trouble telling an act of war from a war crime; the film finds it difficult. Spielberg’s movie worries about the moral trap of resisting terror; my book worries about the moral trap of not resisting it.

Spielberg is quoted as saying that the real enemy in the Middle East is intransigence. He conceives of “Munich” as a prayer for peace. His screenwriter Tony Kushner says they do not wish to demonize either side.

Such remarks illustrate why, in an era of moral chaos, Hollywood is unlikely to restore clarity.

….and from the director

Spielberg himself said of the movie, “Criticism is a form of love. I love America, and I’m critical of this administration. I love Israel, and I ask questions. Those who ask no questions may not be a country’s best friends.”

“I do believe that it sullies the memory of the victims if we do not ask questions about the reasons, about the roots of terror. My film is not supposed to be a pamphlet, not a caricature, not a one-dimensional view of things. I refuse to give simple answers to complicated questions.”

“A campaign of vengeance, even though it may contribute towards deterrence and preventing terror, can also have unintended consequences. It can change people, burden them, brutalize them, lead to their ethical decline”

“This film clearly states that the Black September of the Munich murders were terrorists. These were unforgivable actions but until we begin to ask questions about who these terrorists are and why terrorism happens, we’re never going to get to the truth of why 9/11 happened, for instance.”

ahad_ha_amoratsim

There are numerous reviews on the internet that debunked Munich. Kushner deliberately changed what actually happened in order to present a more ‘balanced’ story, creating dialogue that never happened and substituting it for what was actually said, distorting events, and eliminating context, in order to attribute Israel’s actions to primitive bloodlust and ethnocentrism.

95Theses

Yeah. I’ve watched the film several times and saw it that way, too. I can’t say how close to fact or how far from fiction some of the events that were portrayed, but certainly the brutal and needless slaughter of the Jewish athletes as they were helplessly shackled in the helicopter scene did not arouse feelings of sympathy from me for the so-called Palestinian cause.

Arlie

While reading your words my heart is pounding and my eyes are wet. The world “elite”are a deranged nightmare of evil forces marching without conscience. In truth they are the lowest scum of the earth! Now is the time for all good men & women to speak up and be strong against these evil beings. Thank you FPM for your dedication to speaking the truth of these corrupted dark forces that are continually out to destroy all that is good in creation. Good cannot fail this time. The tragedy will be immense. G-d Bless.

Bert

Israel and Jews remain the moral test area for the nations and also for the ‘liberal’ Jews as well. From bible times onward there have also been morally corrupt Jews who collaborated with enemies to destroy Judaism itself by destroying Jews and the reborn Jewish state. Stalin had many Jewish supporters in his government while he was murdering millions. During WWII Jews were friendless and helpless in the face of their killers. This time around even the corrupt government of Israel will be forced to nuke their enemies and the world will pay a horrific price for their evil. Spielberg and his degenerate pals are blindly promoting another war against Israel.

http://longhornproject.org/ Robin Rosenblatt

Spielberg has betrayed Israel.

Sharps Rifle

Spielberg has betrayed the human species.

http://longhornproject.org/ Robin Rosenblatt

Shalom Sharps Rifle,

I need help with this. Please share. I ply have about 30 days to raise funds then I have to change address.

Yes Ben Hecht could have written a monumental movie about the Holocaust but not from a European perspective but about the inaction and indifference of the American Jewish community (the exception being the orthodox Jews), not too dissimilar to what is happening now concerning Israel.

Daniel Greenfield

he could have done either one

Abberline

“Never again” is now actually “Please God, not tomorrow”. That’s the way it seemed back in late 2001/early 2002.

Sharps Rifle

I may well be wrong (I have been before, and I will be again), but Spielberg strikes me as being Jewish In Name Only, as do most people of Jewish ethnicity who are on the left. It suits their political purposes to claim Hebrew status, but except for some occasional pro-forma attendance at synagogue, they’re no more Jewish than a Baptist preacher is.

My experience has been that religious Jews, whether Orthodox, Conservative, or (rarely) Reform, tend to be more politically Conservative, truly concerned about the state of humanity (the bozos in this article care about how it makes them look to appear as though they care about people…come on! If Clooney REALLY were all that decent a guy, he sure as blazes wouldn’t be marrying a terrorist lawyer! And where does Spielberg come off naming people ambassadors to anything? He’s an overrated film maker, not king of the world!), and have been genuinely decent human beings that I have been proud and happy to call friends. The leftist JINO’s are as phony as are other leftists…and the Hollywood JINO’s are some of the worst of all.

If I may make a point which may or may not be tied into this article (and Dan, you’ve done another excellent job! Your essays are always among the best and most interesting run on FPM), it seems to me that people who hate all Jews for the actions of the leftist ones are idiots. Religious Jews usually do support Israel (and I do, as well…not for religious reasons–I have no religion–but for military and political reasons. The Israeli military is a fighting force without compare. They are mission-oriented, trained to a razor’s edge, and well-commanded. Would that our now-politically correct military, in which I served in the days before PC, were that competent. Politically, they are a parliamentary republic, and the only–THE ONLY–free nation in that whole cesspit part of the world. If the United States has a conscience AT ALL, support of Israel is a no-brainer!), are family-oriented, pro-life, pro-human rights and pro-American. In the past, religious Jews were anti-Communist, and with the apparent re-emergence of Communism in American politics, they are again. The leftist ethnic Jews (the JINO’s) are garden-variety sleazoids who just happen to have Jewish names. Low lives like Spielberg are worthy of contempt NOT because of being ethnically Jewish, but for the same reason as 0bama, Clooney, the Clintons, and the Kennedys are worthy of being held in contempt: Because they are leftists who hold beliefs and opinions which are anathema to, and destructive of, everything our Constitution and culture stands for.

This nation has gone a great distance toward living up to what Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence: “…all men are created equal” (meaning that no one stands above another in the eyes of the law, and that we all should be able to fail or succeed on our own merits, not on the basis of ancestry or connections). The moneyed and political elites at Spielberg’s little hypocritical shindig are NOT even remotely real Americans. We should reject them for that reason…they don’t represent at all what this nation has stood for and MUST stand for. Bluntly, Spielberg has profaned the memories of the people who died in the Shoah and has mocked the seriousness and solemnity that remembering that human disaster requires. But then, since Spielberg’s ideological compatriot, Ed Schultz, claimed that homosexuals were the REAL target of the Holocaust, perhaps we should not be too surprised that Spielberg was having fun wallowing around in the JINO ooze.

Six million souls are screaming their disgust at Spielberg…and he could not care less.

Drakken

Very well said, for a man that does not comment much, you sure do hit the mark with incredible accuracy. Salute!

Daniel Greenfield

excellently said, I can add nothing

truebearing

That’s some dam n fine shooting. You shot 30 rounds, and there is only one hole, right at the center of the bullseye.

Sara

So perfectly said. They have no knowledge of the real world nor do they really care. What is being said about these fake Jews can also be said about the social justice Christians who are being redirected from a religious, humanitarian view of social justice, to a political one of Marxist redistribution. The leftists began their assault in religious institutions, especially Catholic ones. I was in one and it took me a long time to see it.

Schwoggle

My name is Michael Schneider and as an actor playing the part of Juda Dressner in the film “Schindler’s List” I would like to make the following comments:
Steven Spielberg is unquestionably a brilliant film director. His untainted and maybe childish view of the truth of the subject with which he is dealing is what makes him what he is.
I was lucky to have worked with him during the 3 month shoot and I never found him varying from his truth.
While he was editing his dinosaur movie, “Jurassic Park”, at night by satellite from California in Poland he was directing “Schindler’s List” by day. We, the actors, were told not to learn Steven Zalien’s lines as Steven would change them on the spot which he invariably did and almost always to better effect.
In the 40+ movies in which I have acted I have never seen a director stick so valiantly to the story he is portraying.
Some of the comments above do not represent the Steven Spielberg I know. He is a man of his truth and that is something difficult to say about many in the entertainment industry.

Sharps Rifle

But is HIS “truth” THE truth? Therein lies the question.

Michael

As my son likes to point out;

“Truth has no agenda.”

tagalog

What is “his truth” as opposed to the just plain truth?

Wolfthatknowsall

Mr. Schneider, I appreciate your honesty with us, and also your portrayal of Juda Dressner. I’ve worked in theatre, also … primarily stage … and the Director always determines whether a production will be have elements of greatness, or will totally “bomb”.

I’m also a conservative, and although Mr. Spielberg makes consistently great movies, I also understand that he is not a friend of my ideological stance. Accordingly, whenever I watch any of his films, I enjoy the technical expertise he puts into them, but also with an element of distrust in the message he’s trying to convey. His movies always have a message, or he wouldn’t take them on.

BTW, the only movie I’ve ever worked on was Braveheart, where I was a combat choreographer, and appeared as an extra in the battle scenes. Mel Gibson was absolutely fascinating to work for, and determined to create a great movie … I would say “driven”.

My primary work on stage was Shakespearean, once playing the role of MacBeth, in front of an open-air crowd of 20,000 people. Heady stuff, and I love theatre people!

This was an avocation for me, however, because I spent most of my adult life teaching philosophy in a university setting.

Believe it or not, I remember your role in Masada, as the surgeon.

Judahlevi

Spielberg may be an excellent director and hard worker who is obsessed with his “truth” being represented in his films – no one here is disputing that.

We dispute his “truth” because it is not the truth we know. Spielberg runs with his emotions, not his intellect, but any true intellectual needs to be in touch with both emotion and reason. Movies, like propaganda, are made to appeal to the heart, but real truth is found more often in reason.

carpe diem 36

wrong! wrong! no comments was made about his movie crafting abilities. but as to being a decent member of the Jewish community, having done the tapes of testimony of the survivors, he totally defamed himself by this one “party” and by giving the Human prize to Obama. this is the disgusting part, at least for me.

Daniel Greenfield

Thank you for commenting. This article was not about Schindler’s List and you know far more than any of us as to what was involved.

Spielberg is certainly a man of his truth. The problem is that his truth is a conventional narrative of the left that is hostile to Israel and to America in the face of Islamic terrorism.

tony kushner thinks that the arab / paleswinian savages who invaded the ’72 Olympics and kidnapped and murdered the Israeli athletes are at the same level as the Israelis who tracked down those responsible for that are equivalent is a travesty.

How would tony kushner feel if the government of Fascist Iran which hangs gay teens, as gay as tony kushner, are compared as equals to kushner himself?

Making the victim and the perpetrator equals.

lyndaaquarius

“Spielberg,the great film craftsman, is a “useful idiot” with a “skull full of mush”. How else to explain his adoration of a brutal dictator?

hiernonymous

Nice post, but in the world of the professionally indignant, if you don’t subscribe to the correct political orthodoxy, you are not simply a political opponent – you are insane, immoral, incompetent, and evil. Mr. Greenfield & Co cannot be satisfied to simply disagree with Mr. Spielberg; they must insist that Mr. Spielberg is a bad filmmaker and – not sure if you’ve seen this little gem – have insisted that he is not really Jewish.

Joe The Gentile

Never ‘varying from his truth’ and having a ‘childlike view of the truth’ are overrated. These things are probably also true of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot….

Sara

Maybe he needs to vary from his truth. His liberalism has trumped his common sense. If there is another Holocaust, it won’t only be Jews targeted. Look around you. Every country in the world governs their people with some level of tyranny and treats their people like a collective. We are the first and last of the truly free people and those of us who are fighting for that freedom are considered radical right wingers. They are the extremists and they are blinded by their ideology.

tagalog

Conan O’Brien called all his writers together and asked him for Holocaust jokes, and they couldn’t come up with any.

Well, as the old man said in the 1960s, when a kid asked him for a joke about his stay in Auschwitz, “You had to be there.”

carpe diem 36

this is beyond outrageous!! in one “party” he cancelled all the good he ever did. he interviewed my relatives who were survivors and we have videos of those interviews, they are no longer alive, but with this “award” he desecrated their memories and their suffering and the history of the Jewish millions. I cannot understand how a person can get so low, he is nothing but despicable. Obama does not belong in that “party”, or the Holocaust did not belong in that party, they do not belong together. Obama has no feelings for anything or anyone, he will dance on all those graves with not a thought.

new MarcH

There is a light-year of difference between FDR and BHO. Begin with the fact that FDR led the US to war w/Nazi Germany (Lend Lease, pre-war Convoys in the N. Atlantic, etc.) while BHO has led the appeasement of Iran.

Libslayer

The difference between hitler and Obama:
Obama would never kill Jews.
He has his friends in the Muslim brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah to do the job for him.

Sharps Rifle

Hitler didn’t kill Jews…he had Himmler, Eichmann and the SS do the job for him.

Same thing as Zero and the Bros.

tagalog

Manson didn’t kill Sharon Tate and her companions, either. In fact, he wasn’t even present when the murders were committed.

ricpic

Spielberg’s liberal orthodoxy is no more than being in with the in-team. That the in-team is not so subtly antisemitic? The I don’t see that I don’t hear that mechanism goes on in Spielberg’s brain. Why? Because NOTHING is allowed to trump being in with the in-team.

Drakken

When I see these people partying like there is no tomorrow, and not a care in the world, I have this image of Nero fiddling and laughing it up while Rome burns.

http://www.theatheistconservative.com Jillian Becker

Excellent article. Painfully true. Very many thanks to the author.

Daniel Greenfield

thank you Jillian

truthtroll

“Islamic terrorist group that his administration fought to keep off the terrorist list,” What? Was there a petition going around or something? Boko Haram was designated a T.O. in November of 2013.

Daniel Greenfield

Quite belatedly

Vicki S

you know the geicko ad, where the woman says, “that’s not how it works, that’s not how any of it works”. I feel that way now, about our world

Worldwhy

2 points… These hollywood people turn a blind eye to pedophiles in their midst just
Like the fashion business protects them too..
a shop owner who deals with Speilberg’s wife says they return everything after they wear it and are vulgar to deal with.

SCREW SOCIALISM

I’m skeptical.

lyndaaquarius

my sister worked at NYC Bonwit Teller’s and told us the Kennedy Women were famous for that back in the 70’s.

TL2014

Brilliant column Daniel! One of your best!

Daniel Greenfield

thank you

ZalmiU

Excellent piece. Well said!

darnellecheri

There is no excuse on this planet to make jokes about this unspeakable misery and evil called the Shoah. I can barely wrap my mind around the minds and mouths of those who joked about it and all those who stood by and accepted this speech. Personally, I do not use the term “Holocaust.” In written French, this term is used in French Bibles when referring to burnt offerings beginning in Genesis. No need to comment further.

hatsylady

Great article. How do they make a party out of this? Is Spielberg the most ignorant man ever to give the most hostile President to Israel this “award”?

http://www.quidblog.com/ PeterP

Neville again!

NJK

Spielberg is white trash with money. So are his friends.

Seek

Go make your own movies, then. Show us how it’s done.

Andy_Lewis

“There was no explanation as to what an Ambassador for Humanity does.
Maybe he reaches out to space aliens. Or tries to commune with fish.”

Stop raggin’ on Moochelle, mkay?

mrbarry

America’s #1 Problem are the Jews and the sooner these parasites are shipped off to Israel where they belong, the better off America will be as well as the whole world

Bklyn Farmer

Your leaving would result in at least a 10 point IQ jump jackass
P.S. looks like your mother was a real bitch.

mrbarry

Take you all day to come with that retort AH!

Bklyn Farmer

Your post have all the wit and wisdom of a dog’s bark, jackass.
Timed: 2 sec.

Maybe these self-hating Jews are saying “The failure of the loser Hitler will” NEVER “repeat” AGAIN? How sad is that?

SoCalMike

Never again indeed.
The parallels between the media and State Department of the 30s with the media and the State Department today is sublime and reveals rot both infests within and is attracted to both institutions.
Best and Brightest they like to call themselves but they are the worst and dimmest.

Christopher Riddle

“Ambassador To Humanity”?Maybe Christopher Stevens would still be among”The Living”had he received this appointment rather than that of US Ambassador to Libya??If Bill Clinton,Jeffrey Katzenberg,Steven Spielberg are:”Ambassadors To Humanity”,I must echo the late Great Hollywood Mugul(Samuel Goldwyn) who used to say:”Include me Out”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lyndaaquarius

Thank you,Daniel Greenfield. May all good things come to you and yours.

Bob Bartlett

I am amazed? Steven Spielberg made such a wonderful movie about the Holocaust and then surrounds himself with anti-Semites? Why?